Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha Rho Chi


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Alpha Rho Chi

 * – ( View AfD View log )

non notable organization Wuh  Wuz  Dat  00:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Notable organization. My rationale is no more half-assed than this cut-and-paste nomination, which smacks of bad faith and a lack of any research whatsoever. Carrite (talk) 02:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith on the part of the nominator as you would want good faith to be assumed on your contributions Hasteur (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What is one supposed to think about 20 or so nominations, all of which coincidentally begin with ALPHA, without anything more than a simple cut-and-pasted 4 word "rationale" and no visible evidence that the slightest effort was made to separate the sheep from the goats? Pro-forma nomination gets a pro-forma defense, and all these should be ruled a procedural keep by the closing administrator unless valid indication that the NOMINATION had merit can be demonstrated by delete voters. Carrite (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep as per above comment. NYCRuss   ☎  12:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Sourcing is missing and evidenced by the July 2007 request for sourcing, we still don't have any sourcing. Perhaps the pro-forma supporters will resolve the issue... Hasteur (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 00:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Per the discussion at ANI on the "Bizarre AFDs" by this editor, I urge a SPEEDY PROCEDURAL CLOSE of this and all other clearly bad-faith, automated ALPHA-BLANK-BLANK challenges, without prejudice to the opening of a new AfD debate on the limited number of pages which may well not meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards. Carrite (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep a major organization with many highly notable alumni--not in the least borderline. The criterion is unsourceable, and those wishing to delete should explain how they determined that.  Even if it were, as I argued above, borderline articles should not be deleted on the basis of this reckless mass nomination.    DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. A century-old organization, many references at GBooks and GNews; the Alpha Rho Chi Medal discussed in the article is mentioned in many architecture bios, testifying to its notability as well.  The chapter house at USC was named a Los Angeles cultural monument in 1994.   --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If the organization is so referenced, please feel empowered to insert said references into the article. Hasteur (talk) 14:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This being completely optional and aside from the process here, of course. Carrite (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Carrite, the point of AfD is to both determine if the article is notable and to improve it if there's defecincies. If nobody goes back and improves the articles with the information that has been uncovered, the entirety of the keep viewpoints boil down to a "I want it kept because I like it" opinion, completly unsupported by policies. Please dispense with the low grade attacks and folow policy. Hasteur (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My friend, I beg to differ. This is not the Article Improvement Workshop, it is a place where a determination is made whether an article topic is inclusion-worthy or deletable. While sometimes great improvements are made in the course of a topic's defense (I like to think I've made a couple), the basic function of AfD is the decision of life or death for a given topic. Carrite (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Please note that the nominator of this piece has been banned indefinitely from making further nominations at AfD, either manually or by use of automated tools — as this nomination was. He is welcomed, on the other hand, to make an appearance here to tell us exactly why this long-established organization is "not-notable," which he neglected to do in the nomination. Carrite (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Arxilixos; I see no reason why it should be considered a non-notable organization. Meets WP:N. --24.26.42.89 (talk) 02:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.